vol: xvi part: 01 january, 2021

TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

Vol: XVI Part: 01 January, 2021

IMPORTANT CASE LAW

HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI

No.30/95, P.S.K.R. Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028

Phone Nos. 044– 24958595 / 96 / 97 / 98 Fax: (044) 24958595

Website: www.tnsja.tn.nic.in E-Mail: [email protected]/[email protected]

REGIONAL CENTRE, COIMBATORE,

No.251, Scheme Road, Race Course, Coimbatore – 641 018,

Telephone No: 0422 – 2222610 / 710

E-Mail:[email protected]

REGIONAL CENTRE, MADURAI,

Alagar Koil Road, Madurai – 625 002,

Telephone No: 0452 – 2560807 / 811

E-Mail:[email protected]

http://www.tnsja.tn.nic.in/

mailto:[email protected]/[email protected]

I

IINNDDEEXX

SS.. NNoo.. IIMMPPOORRTTAANNTT CCAASSEE LLAAWW PPAAGGEE

NNoo..

1. Supreme Court – Civil Cases II

2. Supreme Court – Criminal Cases IV

3. High Court – Civil Cases V

4. High Court – Criminal Cases VIII

II

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCAASSEESS WWIITTHH CCIITTAATTIIOONN

SUPREME COURT - CIVIL CASES

S.

No CAUSE TITLE CITATION

DATE OF

JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES

Pg.

No.

1

Smt.S.Vanitha Vs.

The Deputy

Commissioner,

Bangaluru Urban

District & Ors.

2020 (4)

TLNJ 473

(Civil)

15.12.2020

Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007, Sections 3 & 4:-

Summary Procedure

contemplated under the Senior

Citizen Act 2007 was not

available for the purpose of

facilitating strategies that are

designed to defeat the woman's

right to claim 'shared house-hold'

under the Protection of Woman

from Domestic Violence Act,

2005.

1

2

Anita Sharma and

others Vs. The New

India Assurance

Company Ltd. &

Anr.

2020 (4)

TLNJ 581

(Civil)

08.12.2020

Evidence Act – Standard of

Proof in Motor Accident Claim

cases:-

Strict Principles of evidence and

Standard of Proof are

inapplicable in Motor Accident

Claim cases. The Standard of

Proof in such like matters is one

of preponderance of

probabilities, rather than beyond

reasonable doubt.

1

3

Vidya Drolia Vs.

Durga Trading

Corporation

CDJ 2020

SC 890 14.12.2020

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996, Rent Control Legislation:-

Landlord – tenant disputes

covered and governed by Rent

Control Legislation would not be

arbitrable when specific court or

forum has been given exclusive

jurisdiction to apply and decide

special rights and obligations.

2

4

M/s.N.N.Global

Mercantile Private

Limited Vs.

M/s.Indo Unique

Flame Limited and

others

CDJ 2021

SC 019 11.01.2021

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 – Stamp Duty:-

Arbitration Agreement between

the parties is not chargeable to

payment of stamp duty.

2

5

Deputy General

Manager (Appellate

Authority) and

others Vs.

Ajaikumar

Srivastava

CDJ 2021

SC 004 05.01.2021

Departmental Enquiry –

Standard of Proof:-

Strict rules of evidence are not

applicable to Departmental

Enquiry Proceedings.

3

III

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

6

Kirti and others Vs.

Oriental Insurance

Company Limited

CDJ 2021

SC 008 05.01.2021

Motor Accident Compensation:-

The death of a dependant of the

deceased victim, during the

pendency of legal proceedings,

ought not to be a reason for

reduction of Motor Accident

Compensation.

3

IV

SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

1

Hitesh Verma Vs.

State of Uttarakhand

and Another

2020 (4)

MLJ (Crl.)

632 (SC)

05.11.2020

Scheduled Caste and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec.3:-

Offence under the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989, is not established merely

on the fact that the informant is a

member of Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe, unless there is

an intention to humiliate a

member of Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe for the reason

that the victim belongs to such

caste.

4

2

Chaman Lal Vs. The

State of Himachal

Pradesh

2020 (13)

SCALE 539 03.12.2020

Indian Penal Code, Sections 375

& 376:-

A man is said to commit rape, if

with her consent when, at the

time of giving such consent by

reason of unsoundness of mind,

she is unable to understand the

nature and consequence of that

to which she gives consent.

4

3 Rahna Jalal Vs. State

of Kerala and Another

2021 (1)

TLNJ 38

(Crl)

17.12.2020

Muslim Woman (Protection of

Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019,

Sections 3 and 4:-

The offence u/s.4 of Muslim

Woman (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2019, can only

be committed by a Muslim

husband and not by his relatives.

5

4

Kamlesh Chaudhary

Vs. State of Rajasthan

CDJ 2021

SC 009 05.01.2021

Code of Criminal Procedure,

Sec.167(2) :-

Filing of Charge Sheet in court

can itself be no ground to

rearrest an accused who was

released on default bail under

section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.

5

5

Anversinh @

Kiransinh Fatesinh

Zala Vs. State of

Gujarat

CDJ 2021

SC 027 12.01.2021

Indian Penal Code, Sections

361, 363:-

'Consensual Affair' is not a

defence against a charge of

kidnapping a minor.

6

V

HIGH COURT - CIVIL CASES

S.

No. CAUSE TITLE CITATION

DATE OF


Pg.

No.

1 S.Mohan Vs. Vadivel

2020 (3)

MWN (Civil)

705

16.10.2020

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

Order 34 Rule 5 and Order 21

Rule 34:-

After payment of amount due

on the mortgage, the

defendant/Mortgager is entitled

to file application under Order

34 Rule 5 of C.P.C., seeking

final decree for discharge and

delivery of and also file

petition under Order 21 Rule 34

to execute the said final decree.

7

2 S.Nagapandi Vs.

K.Palanisamy

2020 (3)

MWN (Civil)

734

25.09.2020


Order 7 Rule 7 and Section

151, Specific Relief Act, 1963,

Section 22:-

In a suit for Specific

Performance of agreement of

sale, if it is established from

evidence that agreement

intended only to operate as

security for loan obtained from

plaintiff, court can mould the

relief and grant the lesser relief

of return of the admitted loan

amount.

7

3 P.Vairamuthu Vs.

R.Karunanithi

2021 (1)

TNMAC 48 09.12.2020

Functional Disability –

Compensation for loss of

earning capacity:-

Functional Disability cannot be

said to mean that it must be

visible and obvious disability

directly impacting earning

capacity. Any sustained

difficulty to sit or concentrate

in an activity can be termed as

functional disability.

8

VI

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

4 Mohana Seshathri Vs.

E.Anuja

2020 (3)

MWN (Civil)

767

11.02.2020


Section 24:-

Even if proceeding under

Protection of Woman from

Domestic Violence Act 2005,

pending before criminal court is

civil in nature, Section 24 of

Civil Procedure Code cannot be

applied for transferring the said

proceeding from Criminal

Court to Civil Court.

8

5

Shenbagavalli and

Another Vs.

Kallaichelvi

2020 (8) MLJ

695 30.11.2020

Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

Section 120:-

When Section 120 of the Indian

Evidence Act, with its

unlimited qualification, had

granted functional competency

to a spouse to speak to hearsay,

necessarily it takes within its

folds all the facts that also fall

within the exclusive knowledge

of the other spouse.

9

6

Renuka and others Vs.

A.Kamalam (died) and

others

2020 (6) CTC

657 19.06.2020


Order 2, Rule 2:-

Suit for partition filed by co-

owner though subsequently

abandoned, would not be a

ground for dismissal of suit

filed by other co-owner for the

same cause of action.

9

7

Sri Arunachala

Mudaliar Charities,

Kanchipuram , rep. By

its Hereditary

Managing Trustee,

V.Kuppusamy Vs.

Subburaya Mudaliar

High School,

Kanchipuram

2021 (1) CTC

77 28.10.2020

Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

Sections 111 and 116:-

Possession of Tenant cannot

confer title by Adverse

Possession unless tenancy was

proved to be terminated by act

of Landlord or that Tenant

denied tenancy and claimed to

be in possession adverse to

interest of Landlord.

10

VII

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

8

D.Santhanadurai Vs.

A.Nishanth Joe Raj

and another

2021 (1)

MWN (Civil)

14

21.07.2020

Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

Section 117, Indian Stamp Act,

1889, Section 35, Registration

Act, 1908, Sections 2(d), 17 &

19:-

An Agricultural Lease, if from

year to year or for any term

exceeding one year, is

compulsorily registerable and

has to be sufficiently stamped.

Unregistered and unstamped

Agricultural Lease Deed is

inadmissible in evidence even

for collateral purpose.

10

9

New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. Vs.

Srinivasan and others

2021 (1)

TNMAC 73 18.11.2020

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

Section 2(34):-

If the public had access to the

Agricultural Land, the said

Agricultural Land is a public

place within the definition of

Section 2 (34) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

11

10

Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation

Vs. Ponnusami

2021 (1)

TNMAC 32

(DB)

13.01.2020

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

Sections 168 and 173:-

If the victim got alternative

employment for the same salary

without discontinuity of

service, the compensation for

loss of income cannot be

calculated by applying

multiplier method.

11

VIII

HIGH COURT - CRIMINAL CASES

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

1

Muthukumar and

others Vs.The State

rep by Inspector of

Police

2020 (2) TLNJ

450 (Criminal) 02.11.2020

Indian Penal Code, 1860,

Sections 351 & 353:-

Mere words do not amount to

an assault. But the words which

a person uses may give to his

gestures or preparations such a

meaning as may make those

gestures or preparations amount

to an assault.

12

2 E.Samsudeen Vs.

S.Jeenath Begam

CDJ 2020

MHC 4366 23.12.2020

Protection of Woman from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005:-

Withdrawal of petition claiming

reliefs under the Domestic

Violence Act is not a bar for the

wife to file fresh petition for the

same relief.

12

3

K.Selvaraj Vs. State

rep. by Inspector of

Police, Vigilance and

Anti Corruption

CDJ 2020

MHC 4322 17.12.2020

Prevention of Corruption Act,

Sections 2(c)(viii) and 2(c)(ix):-

Office bearers of Agricultural

Co-operative Credit Society can

be prosecuted under the

Prevention of Corruption Act as

they are public servants falling

under Section 2(c)(viii) and

2(c)(ix) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act.

13

4

M.K.Stalin, M.L.A.

Vs. City Public

Prosecutor

CDJ 2020

MHC 4316 14.12.2020

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,

Section 199(2):-

If the criticism or defamation

has no nexus with discharge of

his/her official function of the

state, complaint under Section

199(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be

made by public prosecutor,

merely on the basis of G.O.

14

5

Rajan Vs. State

represented by the

Deputy

Superintendent of

Police

2020 (2) TLNJ

419 19.11.2020

Appreciation of Evidence in

Criminal Case:-

The entire version of the

prosecution case will not

become unacceptable, merely

because a stray statement has

been culled out in the cross

examination of the complainant

that he saw the accused when he

went to the Police Station to

lodge the complaint.

14

IX

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

6

K.Rajanarayanan

alias Ki.Ra Vs.

P.Kathiresan and

another

2020 (2) TLNJ

437 16.10.2019

Duty of the Magistrate at the

stage of filing complaint:-

At the complaint stage, the

Magistrate has the duty to see, if

the allegations made in the

complaint are so absurd on the

basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just

conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused and if the

proceeding has been

maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive.

15

7

Dr.P.Pathmanathan

and others Vs.

V.Monica and

another

CDJ 2021

MHC 077 18.01.2021

Prevention of Woman from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005,

Section 12:-

The Application u/s.12 of the

Domestic Violence Act is not a

complaint u/s.2(d) of Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the procedure set

out in Section 190(1)(a) and 200

to 204 of Cr.P.C. has no

application to such cases.

Hence, it would be open to the

aggrieved respondent to

approach the Magistrate and

raise the issue of maintainability

and other preliminary issues.

15

8 V.G.Srinivasan Vs.

D.Srinivasalu

CDJ 2021

MHC 035 30.12.2020

Negotiable Instruments Act,

Section 138:-

As per clause (c) of proviso to

Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, no complaint

can be filed for the offence

under Section 138 of the N.I.

Act unless the period of 15 days

from the date on which the

notice has been served on the

drawer has elapsed. The Court

is barred in law from taking

cognizance of the said

complaint.

16

X

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

9

O.Ramachandran Vs.

State rep. by the

Inspector of Police,

NIBCID, Chennai.

CDJ 2021

MHC 017 08.01.2021

Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985:-

The delay of 45 days in

producing the contraband in the

court from the date of its

recovery, without any

acceptable explanation, is fatal

to the prosecution case.

17

10

Saroja Vs. State

through the Inspector

of Police

CDJ 2021

MHC 036 30.12.2020

Indian Penal Code, Section

366(A), 376, Immoral Traffic

Prevention Act, 1956, Sections

4, 5 & 7, Appreciation of

Evidence:-

The evidence of prosecutrix of a

sex offence has to be treated

like that of an injured witness.

18

1

SUPREME COURT CIVIL CASES

2020 (4) TLNJ 473 (Civil)

S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Others

Date of Judgment : 15.12.2020

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 3 & 4:- The fact that

specific proceedings under the PWDV Act 2005 had not been instituted when the application under the

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed, should not lead to a situation where the enforcement of an order of

eviction deprives her from pursuing her claim of entitlement under the law. The inability of a woman to

access judicial remedies may, as this case exemplifies, be a consequence of destitution, ignorance or

lack of resources. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view that recourse to the summary procedure

contemplated by the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was not available for the purpose of facilitating strategies

that are designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of a shared household. A shared

household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly

residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently

transferred to her in-laws (Second and Third Respondents) or that her estranged spouse (Fourth

respondent) is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was

envisaged under the PWDV Act 2005.

2020 (4) TLNJ 581 (Civil)

Anita Sharma & Others Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Another


Evidence Act – Standard of Proof in Motor Accident Claim cases:- Equally, we are concerned over

the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards

of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such

2

like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to

be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases

ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a

criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to

ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true.

CDJ 2020 SC 890

Vidya Drolia & Others Vs. Durga Trading Corporation


Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Rent Control Legislation:- We hold that landlord-tenant

disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration. However,

landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by rent control legislation would not be arbitrable when

specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide special rights and

obligations. Such rights and obligations can only be adjudicated and enforced by the specified

court/forum, and not through arbitration.

CDJ 2021 SC 019

M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited Vs. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Limited & Others


Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Stamp Duty:- We hold that since the arbitration agreement

is an independent agreement between the parties, and is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, the

non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract, would not invalidate the arbitration clause, or

render it un-enforceable, since it has an independent existence of its own.

3

CDJ 2021 SC 004

Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava


Departmental Enquiry – Standard of Proof:- Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to

departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against

the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting

reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the

delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even

in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

CDJ 2021 SC 008

Kirti & Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited


Motor Accident Compensation:- It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were

four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent

mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal

liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily

affect pending proceedings. Just like how appellant-claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in

minimum wages, the respondent-insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent

during the pendency of legal proceedings.

* * * * *

4

SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASES

2020 (4) MLJ (Crl) 632(SC)

Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Another


Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec.3:- Offence

under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste

unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason

that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the

land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such

person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.

2020 (13) SCALE 539

Chaman Lal Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh


Indian Penal Code, Sections 375 & 376:- On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, more

particularly the deposition of doctors examined as PW11 - Dr. Ramesh Kumar and PW22 - Dr. Rama

Malhotra, the High Court has specifically found that the IQ of the victim was 62 which was based on

the history and mental state examination of the victim. The High Court has also come to the conclusion

that the victim was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of the sexual assault. Merely

because the victim was in a position to do some household works cannot discard the medical evidence

that the victim had mild mental retardation and she was not in a position to understand the good and bad

aspect of sexual assault. It appears that the accused had taken advantage of the mental illness of the

victim. It is required to be appreciated coupled with the fact that the accused is found to be the

biological father of the baby child delivered by the victim. Despite the above, in his 313 statement the

case of the accused was of a total denial. It was never the case of the accused that it was a case of

5

consent. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, more particularly the deposition of PW11 and

PW22 and even the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses, the High Court has rightly observed

that case would fall under Section 375 IPC and has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under

Section 376 IPC. Even as per clause fifthly of Section 375 IPC, "a man is said to commit rape", if with

her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind, she is unable

to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

2021 (1) TLNJ 38 (Criminal)

Rahna Jalal Vs. State of Kerala and Another


Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Sections 3 and 4:- Under Section

3, a pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife has been rendered void and illegal.

Under Section 4, a Muslim husband who pronounces talaq upon his wife, as referred to in Section 3, is

punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years. The prohibition in Sections

3 and 4 is evidently one which operates in relation to a Muslim husband alone. This is supported by the

Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Bill 2019, when it was introduced in the Parliament.

CDJ 2021 SC 009

Kamlesh Chaudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan


Code of Criminal Procedure, Sec.167(2) :- On the ground that charge sheet was not filed within the

prescribed period, an application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant. The

High Court ruled in his favour by holding that the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 167 as a

complete charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period. While granting bail, the High Court

held that the appellant can be re-arrested after the charge sheet is filed.

6

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the direction for re-arrest of the appellant

on filing of the charge sheet is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Bashir v. State of Haryana

[(1977) 4 SCC 410]. In the said judgment, this Court held that it is open to the prosecution to file an

application for cancellation of bail on the grounds known to law and the receipt of the charge sheet in

Court can by itself be no ground for cancellation of bail.

It is clear from the judgment that filing of charge sheet by itself cannot be a ground for cancellation of

bail.

CDJ 2021 SC 027

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat


Indian Penal Code, Sections 361, 363:- A bare perusal of the relevant legal provisions, as extracted

above, show that consent of the minor is immaterial for purposes of Section 361 of IPC. Indeed, as

borne out through various other provisions in the IPC and other laws like the Indian Contract Act, 1872,

minors are deemed incapable of giving lawful consent. (Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar vs. State of

Gujarat, (2015) 7 SCC 359) Section 361 IPC, particularly, goes beyond this simple presumption. It

bestows the ability to make crucial decisions regarding a minor's physical safety upon his/her guardians.

Therefore, a minor girl's infatuation with her alleged kidnapper cannot by itself be allowed as a defence,

for the same would amount to surreptitiously undermining the protective essence of the offence of

kidnapping.

* * * * *

7

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASES

2020 (3) MWN (Civil) 705

S.Mohan Vs. Vadivel


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 34 Rule 5 and Order 21 Rule 34:- Application by Mortgagor

under Order 21, Rule 34 – Whether maintainable – Suit for Sale based upon Mortgage – Defendant paid

up Mortgage and filed Application under Order 34, Rule 5, seeking Final Decree – Application allowed

– Application by Defendant under Order 21, Rule 34 seeking execution of Discharge Receipt as per

Final Decree – Challenge to maintainability of – Held, after Order passed under Order 34, Rule 5

directing Mortgagee to execute documents in discharge of Mortgage and delivery of documents relating

to property, Mortgagor becomes Decree-holder and Mortgagee becomes Judgment-debtor –

Consequently, Application filed by Mortgagor seeking execution of Decree, maintainable – Order of

Executing Court allowing Application, not interfered with – Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

2020 (3) MWN (Civil) 734

S.Nagapandi Vs. K.Palanisamy


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 7 Rule 7 and Section 151, Specific Relief Act, 1963,

Section 22:- Moulding of Relief vis-à-vis Alternate Relief for refund of amount – Difference between

– Mandate of Section 22 that in Suit for Specific Performance decree for payment of Earnest money

cannot be granted unless specifically prayed for – Said restriction applicable only in cases, where

Defendant does not dispute character of document relied upon by Plaintiff – However, when character

of document is different from its nomenclature, consideration paid thereunder also changes character –

Refund of said consideration by moulding relief in Suit, to do complete justice between parties, upheld

– Said relief, held, not similar to alternate relief of repayment under Section 22.

8

2021 (1) TN MAC 48

P.Vairamuthu Vs. R.Karunanithi


Functional Disability – Compensation for loss of earning capacity:- Functional Disability cannot be

straight jacketed to mean that it must be a visible and an obvious disability which should directly

impact the earning prospects of the Accident-victim. Even any sustained difficulty to sit or concentrate

in an activity can be termed Functional Disability. It has to be decided on the basis of the extent of

damage an Accident-victim‟s efficiency to earn has suffered due to the injuries. If his efficiency

substantially remains the same as it was before the accident then there may not be any functional

disability. On all other cases there will be functional disability, though its percentage may vary.

2020 (3) MWN (Civil) 767

Mohana Seshathri Vs. E.Anuja


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24:- Section 24 C.P.C., may not, as such be applicable to

transfer a case from a Criminal Court to a Civil Court, even though the dispute is of Civil in nature. The

word „proceeding‟ appearing in Section 24 C.P.C., can be construed as one pending before Civil forum

and not before Criminal Court, even if the proceeding before the Criminal Court is of Civil in nature.

However, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the matter may be transferred from a

Criminal Court to a Family Court or any other Court mentioned under 26 of the Domestic Violence

Act.

9

2020 (8) MLJ 695

Shenbagavalli and Another Vs. Kallaichelvi


Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 120:- When Section 120, with its unlimited qualification, has

granted functional competency to a spouse to speak to hearsay, necessarily it takes within its folds all

the facts that also fall within the exclusive knowledge of the other spouse. When the other spouse who

initially steps into the witness box on behalf of the litigant-spouse makes a specific statement as part of

the testimony, that the former does not have any specific knowledge about any particular fact, and that

the said fact is only within the knowledge of the litigant-spouse. It is in those circumstances, it will

become obligatory for a litigant-spouse to testify, and if any abstinence is shown then adverse inference

can well be drawn, since the best evidence rule is breached.

2020 (6) CTC 657

Renuka & Others Vs. A. Kamalam (died) & Others


Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 2, Rule 2 - Partition Suit– Cause of action–

Suit filed by one Co-owner – Abandonment of – Consequence of – Held, as long as relationship of Co-

ownership subsists, right to seek Partition continues – Cause of action for filling Suit for Partition, a

recurring one – Suit for Partition filed by Co-owner though subsequently abandoned, would not be a

ground for dismissal of Suit filed by other Co-owner for same cause of action – Co-owner, who

abandoned legal action, chooses to continue ownership in common without resorting to seek division of

property – Right to seek for Partition, held, subsists as long as property remains undivided.

10

2021 (1) CTC 77

Sri Arunachala Mudaliar Charities, Kanchipuram, Rep. by its Hereditary Managing Trustee

V.Kuppusamy Vs. Subburaya Mudaliar High School, Kanchipuram


Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Sections 111 & 116 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of

1963), Articles 65 & 67 – Tenancy – Adverse Possession – Once a Tenant is always a Tenant –

Possession of Tenant cannot confer title by Adverse Possession unless tenancy was proved to be

terminated by act of Landlord or that Tenant denied tenancy and claimed to be in possession adverse to

interest of Landlord – Animus to possess adverse to title holder, essential factor to be established by

person claiming Adverse Possession – Pleadings and evidence establish Defendant/Tenant admitted

title of Plaintiff/Landlord and had no intention to claim rights by Adverse Possession till Suit for

Ejectment laid by Plaintiff – Failure of Landlord to claim Rent for several years would not amount to

perfection of title by Adverse Possession – Defendant must plead and prove necessary requirements of

Adverse Possession, including date on which possession became adverse to that of Title-holder.

2021 (1) MWN (Civil) 14

D.Santhanadurai Vs. A.Nishanth Joe Raj & Anr


Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 117 –Registration Act,1908 (16 of 1908),

Sections 2(d),17 & 49 – STAMP Act,1889 (2 of 1889), Section 35 – Agricultural Lease –

Unregistered and unstamped –Whether admissible in evidence – Lease as per Section 2(7) of

Registration Act includes a counterpart, Kabuliyat, an undertaking to cultivate or occupy, and an

Agreement to Lease – Agricultural Lease, exempted from provisions of 1882 Act by virtue of Section

117 – Said exemption, however, does not restrict applicability of Registration Act or Stamp Act – An

Agricultural Lease, if from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, is compulsorily registrable

and has to be sufficiently stamped in terms of 1889 enactment – Unregistered and unstamped

Agricultural Lease not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose.

11

2021 (1) TN MAC 73

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Srinivasan and Others


MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(34) – “Public place”, meaning of –

Agricultural land, whether a Public place or Private place – Public place defined as a place to which

Public have an access whether free or controlled – Case-law discussed – Accident occurred while

deceased was working in Agricultural land – Deceased had access to work in land – Agricultural land,

therefore, a Public place and not Private place.

2021 (1) TN MAC 32 (DB)

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Ponnusami


Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 168 and 173:- The Tribunal by adopting Multiplier, fixed 80%

Functional Disability. Even before the Tribunal, the Appellant has stated that the Respondent continues

to work. The fact that the Respondent got the benefit of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is not in dispute. Even in the

grounds of Appeal, such a plea has been taken. It appears that the Respondent/Claimant has attained

the age of superannuation and got all the benefits apart from the Salary during the period of

employment. There is no discontinuity of service also. Therefore, looking from any perspective, the

Award of the Tribunal insofar as the payment of Rs.45,57,972 towards Loss of Income can never be

sustained.

* * * * *

12

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASES


Muthukumar and others Vs. The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thiruthuraipoondi Police

Station, Thiruthuraipoondi Post, Tiruvarur District.


Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 353 & 506(i) – Causing trouble to public by using filthy language –

also did the same to the lady constables (P.W.1 & 2) when they tried to control the accused – Complaint

registered by P.W.3 – Conviction and sentence – Appeal – Dismissed – Revision – Mere words do not

amount to an assault under Section 353 – But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or

preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault – There is

categorical evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the accused abused them in filthy language and also

threatened them with dire consequences if they inform the same to the police and thereby deterred them

from discharging their official duty – It corroborates with evidence of P.W.3 – Threat of the accused

was made with intend to cause alarm to PW1 and PW2, which is obvious from the words uttered by the

accused and it amounts to criminal intimidation as per Section 506(i) IPC – Even there is some minor

discrepancies, that does not create any shadow of doubt in the prosecution case – Conviction recorded

by the Courts below is upheld.

CDJ 2020 MHC 4366

E. Samsudeen & Others Vs. S. Jeenath Begam


Domestic Violence Act, 2005:- The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Jeenath Begam

has earlier filed M.C.No.4 of 2012 for the same relief, but, that petition was withdrawn upon

compromise between the parties and therefore, there cannot be fresh petition for the same relief.

13

In the opinion of this Court, matrimonial offences can give fresh causes of action and therefore, the

withdrawal of the earlier proceedings will not be a bar for the present one.

CDJ 2020 MHC 4322

K. Selvaraj & Another Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,

Villupuram & Another


Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 2(c)(viii) and 2(c)(ix):- First petitioner was the President and

the second petitioner was the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society

Limited. The petitioners are farmers and the Co-operative Society in which they are office bearers, is

catering to the loan requirments of farmers. Farmers constitute 60% of our country's population and

they can be indubitably characterised as public at large. Section 2(c)(viii) and (ix) of Prevention of

Corruption Act defines public servant as follows:

"2(c) PUBLIC SERVANT means

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any

public duty.

(ix) any person who is the President, Secretary or other office-bearer of registered co-operative society

engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from

the Central Government or a State Government or from any Corporation established by or under a

Cetral, Provisional or State Act, or any authority or body owned or conrolled or aided by the

Government or a Government Company as definded in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of

1956)."

The petitioners, as office bearers of the Agricultural Co-operative Society, are required to perform

public duties, in as much as they are required to process the loan application of their farmer members,

disburse loans, take steps to realise the loans, etc. Hence, the petitioners are public servants within the

meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) and (ix) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

14

CDJ 2020 MHC 4316

M.K. Stalin, M.L.A., Treasurer, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Chennai Vs. City Public

Prosecutor, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai.


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 199(2):- To take cognizance of the complaint under Section

199(2) of Cr.P.C., the so called defamation should be directly attributed to a person in discharge of

his/her public functions and only in such circumstances, Sub Section 2 of Section 199 of Code of

Criminal Procedure will stand attracted. If the said imputation apparently made against the pubic

functionaries, in discharge of his/her public function, have no reasonable nexus with the discharge of

public duties, the remedy available under Section 199(6) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate by making

private complaint, and remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) will not be available. Otherwise, if any

criticism or defamation in the nature of personal capacity and such defamation has no nexus with

discharge of his/her official function of the State, complaint cannot be made by a Public Prosecutor

merely on the basis of G.O.


Rajan Vs. State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupattur Sub-Division,

Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Vellore District.


Appreciation of Evidence in Criminal Case:- P.W.1 cannot be termed as an interested witness. An

interested witness is one, who is interested in getting a conviction. P.W.1 has stated that there is no

prior enmity either between the deceased and the appellant or between himself and the appellant.

According to P.W.1., the occurrence took place in two different places. Upon stopping the vehicle of

the deceased, the appellant attacked him and while he was running for his life, he was recaptured,

dragged and again attacked. Ex-P30 sketch is in tune with the evidence of P.W.1. Merely because a

stray statement has been culled out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that he saw the accused when he

15

went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint, the entire version of the prosecution case will not

become unacceptable, especially when there are other evidence available.


K.Rajanarayanan alias Ki.Ra Vs. P.Kathiresan and another


Duty of the Magistrate at the stage of filing complaint:- It is true that at the complaint stage, the

Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint. He has only to prima

facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. It is not his province

to venture into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The Magistrate has to decide

the question purely from the point of view of the complaint without at all adverting to any defence that

the accused may have. He is not expected to embark upon a detailed discussion.

But the above said yardstick and standard cannot be so mechanically applied even in matters that have

clear and direct implications on free speech. This is because taking offence has now become a fashion.

The magistrate will see if the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd on the basis of which no

prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused. He will also see if the proceeding has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

Neither the Magistrate nor the Police should exhibit alacrity to take cognizance or register a case in

such matters. Every time they receive such complaints, they must dust their knowledge of the law

relating to free speech.

CDJ 2021 MHC 077

Dr. P. Pathmanathan & Others Vs. V. Monica & Another


Prevention of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 12:- An application under

Section 12 of the D.V. Act, is not a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the

16

procedure set out in Section 190(1)(a) & 200 to 204, Cr.P.C as regards cases instituted on a complaint

has no application to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. The Magistrate cannot, therefore, treat an

application under the D.V. Act as though it is a complaint case under the Cr.P.C.

As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under the

D.V. Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v Rooplal Jindal (2004 7 SCC 338) that a process,

under Section 204, Cr.P.C., once issued cannot be reviewed or recalled, will not apply to a proceeding

under the D.V. Act. Consequently, it would be open to an aggrieved respondent(s) to approach the

Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues. Issues like the existence

of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an

application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue, in appropriate cases. Any

person aggrieved by such an order may also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act

for effective redress.

CDJ 2021 MHC 035

V.G. Srinivasan Vs. D. Srinivasalu

Date of Judgment: 30.12.2020

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138:- Clause (c) of proviso to section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act makes it clear that no complaint can be filed for an offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, unless the period of 15 days has elapsed. Any complaint before the expiry

of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer is no complaint at all in the

eye of law. The court is barred in law from taking cognizance of the complaint. It is not open to the

court to take cognizance of the said complaint merely because on the date of consideration or taking

cognizance thereof a period of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer

has elapsed. If the period described in clause (c) of proviso to Section 138 has not expired, there is no

commission of an offence or accrual of cause of action for filing the complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

17

CDJ 2021 MHC 017

O. Ramachandran Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Chennai


Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:- It is the duty vested upon the prosecution

to show satisfactory explanation, that the contraband was kept in the safe custody. But here, it is a case,

the property was handed over to the NDPS Court after 45 days, from the date of recovery. But in this

regard, the prosecution has not produced the records, which shows the date on which the property was

received and the date on which the property was taken from the safe custody. Delay of 45 days in

producing the property is nothing but fatal to prosecution.

Further, no explanation was offered on the side of the prosecution for the delay in producing the

contraband before the Court. The articles seized appears to have been not kept in the proper custody

and proper form so that the Court can be sure that what was seized only, was sent to the Chemical

Examiner. There is a big gap and an important missing link.

Moreover, in order to show the direction given by the remanding Magistrate, i.e., for producing the

contraband before the NDPS Court, no document has been produced on the side of the prosecution that

on the date of remand itself the property was produced before the Magistrate. Before the trial Court, the

Form-95 through which the contraband was recovered by PW2, is marked as Ex.P10. In the said

document, no entry has been made by the Remanding Magistrate, in respect to the production of the

contraband, at the time of remanding the accused on 04.06.2007.

So, without any iota of the document, this Court cannot uphold the contention raised by the State that

only upon the direction given by the Remanding Magistrate, the contraband was kept in the police

custody for a period of 45 days. Therefore, that alone is sufficient to hold that the prosecution fails in

their attempt to prove their case.

18

CDJ 2021 MHC 036

Saroja Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tirupattur


Indian Penal Code, Section 366(A), 376, Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, Sections 4, 5 & 7,

Appreciation of Evidence:- A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice.

She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be

accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under

Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of

physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as

in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more.

* * * * *

vol: xvi part: 01 january, 2021

Documents